If your definition of racist is "someone who thinks there may be genetic differences between races" then do you apply this same logic consistently to sexism too?
Am I sexist for suggesting that there are some genetic differences between men and women, that may lead to differences in behaviour? Is articulating this opinion a "bad faith, sexist argument"? Am I trying to draw the reader into making conclusions that are "quite sexist"?
You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Not once have I said this. I can observe that men commit more crime that women, this doesn't make me hate men. Similarly I can observe that adults commit more crime than children, this doesn't make me hate adults.
The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling.
The data that you posted shows two extremely clear trends, gun violence in Philly is commited overwhelmingly by men, and overwhelmingly by black people.
Why men? Well I think its pretty obvious. Men are genetically more aggressive, and genetically much more prone to commit violent acts. Does saying this mean I am sexist and hate men? No, it's just an obvious observation from the data. An observation does not imply anything more.
Ok, so why black people? This is where people's brains start freezing up from social conditioning. Nobody will let themselves analyse this in a logical manner, even though the data shows the exact same pattern and rationally the same factors should apply. You will only ever get name calling, knee-jerk responses and purely emotional, speculative arguments here.
I encourage you to look at the data you yourself have posted and to draw your own conclusions.
>Also, there should be more ways to "praise" a project.
Maybe github should implement a "feedback" tab where people can post their experiences of using the project. Perhaps some of those experiences would be negative too, but it would also allow people to give you neutral or positive feedback on what they like about the project, how they are using it, and what they have achieved with it.
I think programmers need to start taking a lot more responsibility for what we release into the world.
If you don't think your software solves a real problem, or will improve people's quality of life, then why release it?
There are already too many distractions in the modern world. I don't want to create more. Any software you release that doesn't solve a real problem is just another distraction that takes time away from people's lives.
You are just making this up. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of them requesting data of 1,000 users to find one criminal.
What the article actually says:
>From January 2020 to June 2020, Google received nearly 40,000 requests for user information from law enforcement
There were 185,884 deportations by ICE last year, which is around 92,942 in the same time period. They are making 0.5 requests for information for every person they deport.
I am greatly opposed to mass surveillance, especially when justified by some immaterial bogeyman such as "stopping terrorism".
However in this case, illegal immigration is a legitimate problem in the US with actual statistics to prove so, and it seems that they are only targetting individuals that they actually suspect of being criminals.
If law enforcement has genuine belief that I am a criminal then why would I be opposed to giving them data to absolve myself?
And yes of course this has the potential to be abused, but is there any proof of this in the article? It seems like one specific individual was targetted, and they had the courtesy to notify them that this was happening.
>calls for the killing of babies if they where jewish, black etc.
How is this in any way equivalent? Being jewish or black are not disabilities. Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.
I personally think abortion is horrible, but aborting babies who are going to enter life with awful disabilities is the least objectionable form of abortion there is.
You should be outraged at the millions of perfectly healthy babies that are aborted every year just for convenience. Not this.
The upside of third-party trackers is that you can completely block all of them by just blocking third-party javascript. What are we going to do once all of this tracking code starts getting served from the first party domain instead? Or even served inside the same source files as site code?
I imagine we will start seeing a new class of privacy extensions that behave more like anti-virus. Checking for known hashes of tracking scripts, monitoring for certain patterns of behaviour during execution.
>The difference is that with a human near by I feel like I am being judged and when they are not I do not feel that kind of pressure
I will offer you another perspective to consider.
Technology is extremely subversive in that it bypasses all of our brain's instinctual responses. Someone or something monitoring and tracking you should be setting off warning sirens in your brain. At best they are trying to study you, at worse they are trying to exploit or harm you.
Through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution our brains have built up warning systems to make us feel fear and unease when we realise we are being tracked. But since humans have spent 99.99% of evolution entirely in the physical world these systems have no concept of the digital.
The reason you feel extremely uneasy when being monitored by a person, but not when being monitored by a computer system that is collecting the exact same information (or more), is that your subconscious brain doesn't understand computers.
Tracking is not ethical. Corporations only get away with it because most users don't realise it's even happening.
If you went into a retail store and an employee followed you around the whole time with a notebook and stopwatch writing down everywhere you walked and every product you looked at, you would rightly be creeped the fuck out and tell him to stop.
This is exactly what online tracking is, but done virtually.
The rich aren't, but the companies they run practically are, from a political standpoint.
Basically all large, multinational corporations now make their company logo rainbow for pride month, and all release the same sounding official statements about racial inequality on a regular basis, etc. etc.
It's almost impossible to find a large corporation that doesn't do this now. And their statements are so bland and generic that they are almost all identical, and completely interchangeable.
As a white dude, I feel extremely proud because my ancestors abolished slavery.
Oh wait no I don't, because feeling shame or accomplishment for something your ancestors did hundreds of years ago that you had zero control over is a completely ridiculous concept.
Am I sexist for suggesting that there are some genetic differences between men and women, that may lead to differences in behaviour? Is articulating this opinion a "bad faith, sexist argument"? Am I trying to draw the reader into making conclusions that are "quite sexist"?
You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Not once have I said this. I can observe that men commit more crime that women, this doesn't make me hate men. Similarly I can observe that adults commit more crime than children, this doesn't make me hate adults.
The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling.